lastingsgriller wrote:I think there are a lot of fuddy duddy facts around here to draw people's attention from the obvious.

I don't think anyone here is going to deny that McGuire, Sosa, and Bonds were on steroids.

Those three players account for the top 6 hr seasons in MLB history. Not only that, but, those 6 seasons averaged 66.8 hr/season or 9.6% higher than the previous high in over 100 years of baseball.

If you can't see the impact steroids have, I think you're kidding yourself.

The previous record coming during an expansion year where there was a giant HR spike. Ignoring the other things is silly, they are well documented. Without steroids we most likely would have seen the HR record broken or close to broken during that period anyway between the expansion and the balls.

lastingsgriller wrote:I think there are a lot of fuddy duddy facts around here to draw people's attention from the obvious.

I don't think anyone here is going to deny that McGuire, Sosa, and Bonds were on steroids.

Those three players account for the top 6 hr seasons in MLB history. Not only that, but, those 6 seasons averaged 66.8 hr/season or 9.6% higher than the previous high in over 100 years of baseball.

If you can't see the impact steroids have, I think you're kidding yourself.

The previous record coming during an expansion year where there was a giant HR spike. Ignoring the other things is silly, they are well documented. Without steroids we most likely would have seen the HR record broken or close to broken during that period anyway between the expansion and the balls.

I'll even give you broken or close to broken. But 73 HR's is 19.7% higher than the previous record. It's not even close.

do me a favor. open up your excel. copy in the top 100 HR seasons of all-time. Then, make a column graph of the data. you'll notice right away that 66, 70, and 73 are complete outliers. they don't even look like they belong in the same data set. and, obviously,the more data you add over the past 100 years, the sillier those numbers look.

I don't disagree with that. They also fall exactly in the juiced ball era. They tested those balls and found they could fly as much as 40 feet farther than an normal one. Yes steroids play a role but it wasn't the driving force. If it were the driving force guys wouldn't have suddenly stopped hitting that many, it would have kept happening up until 2006 when steroid testing started. The fact that all of the big HR years coincide perfectly with the time that the balls were funny says more to me than anything.

The steriod era is a longer period than 1998 to 2001. These outliers are way too concentrated to be from steroids.

lastingsgriller wrote:I'll even give you broken or close to broken. But 73 HR's is 19.7% higher than the previous record. It's not even close.

do me a favor. open up your excel. copy in the top 100 HR seasons of all-time. Then, make a column graph of the data. you'll notice right away that 66, 70, and 73 are complete outliers. they don't even look like they belong in the same data set. and, obviously,the more data you add over the past 100 years, the sillier those numbers look.

This is actually a reason to believe there was much more impacting the offense in that time period than just prevalent PED use. PED use has been prevalent in baseball for the last 50+ years (and is still likely prevalent now), but there was only one stretch when elite hitters started going off for 65+ HR.

I'm of the belief that steroids/PED's help and wish they didn't do them but I also have absolutely no idea how much they help due to all the other factors/variables in play which may or may not be much more of a positive factor than the actual PED use. And with the evidence I've seen out there it may be likely that PED use is 3rd or 4th on the list of reasons for these spikes...though still a reason.

I just don't care that they help. I think that is the crux of the issue here...not whether or not they actually have some benefit to major leaguers, but does that matter and should we care?

I say no on both counts. It's not an intent to cheat to me...it's an intent to be the best athlete you can be. A rule that stifles that motivation is not a very good rule to me. So I ignore it completely. These guys want to be the best. Let them do what they want to their bodies. Do I feel bad for Griffey Jr. and other suspected clean hitters who don't get that edge? No, not really. Griffey did alright for himself...and HR/health are not all that make a ballplayer great. 2bs, hand-eye coordination, smarts, precision, natural speed...all things way beyond the scope of a PED.

Not only that, but it's been speculated (I don't know how much science is behind it) that the steroid users eventually break down quicker and their bodies are constantly injury plagued. I think A-Rod would be a perfect example of this....so one of the benefits to using them (health/recovery) actually becomes an inverse somewhere down the line...

Go ahead and scientifically adjust how many HR you think they would have, and games played if that suits you. You'll find they're still hall of famers. Keeping racist bigots in the hall of fame under the guise of integrity and morality and keeping Clemens out because he supplemented his body with foreign substances is just silly.

lastingsgriller wrote:I'll even give you broken or close to broken. But 73 HR's is 19.7% higher than the previous record. It's not even close.

do me a favor. open up your excel. copy in the top 100 HR seasons of all-time. Then, make a column graph of the data. you'll notice right away that 66, 70, and 73 are complete outliers. they don't even look like they belong in the same data set. and, obviously,the more data you add over the past 100 years, the sillier those numbers look.

This is actually a reason to believe there was much more impacting the offense in that time period than just prevalent PED use. PED use has been prevalent in baseball for the last 50+ years (and is still likely prevalent now), but there was only one stretch when elite hitters started going off for 65+ HR.

What about the fact that all 6 of those 63 hr+ seasons just happen to come from 3 known steroid users?

Don't you think that if something else was the prevailing factor there would have been more than 3 people cranking out those numbers?

The only good argument to that is that those 3 would have been the elite power bats of that generation with or without steroids, but, I think Sammy Sosa debunks that theory.